Section 38 (last updated 2.04.2021)
If we take as the first premise that the only certainty is uncertainty, in other words the only order is disorder, we have to ask what this determination leads to? The result is not to reverse of language, that is, uncertainty is the only certainty because restructuring of the sentence retains the same meaning. It is important to be aware of manipulating language to retain certain meanings if the aim is to move forward in the logical analysis of thought found in speech. If the result of the relation that uncertainty is certainty is an inversion, then the aim of the relation cannot simply reaffirm itself in the manner it is initiated from because that itself is a determining action forward. What is the step forward from the fact that the only certainty is uncertainty? What becomes the aim of uncertainty being the only certain element? The answer cannot merely be that there is no aim because the certainty that it is uncertain alone constitutes necessary reason for being. The answer therefore lies in the fact that uncertainty being the only certainty aims for certainty of what it is not. Why would something that is already certain aim for certainty? The answer stems from the literal fact that what is certain is itself uncertain therefore certainty rests assured that it at least must dispense between multiplicity of inverse determinations that constitutes for it the level of uncertainty.
Certainty therefore being what uncertainty is, primarily is also what uncertainty is not. Uncertainty being certain as that introduces for itself the element of what it is not, uncertainty is only certain if certainty is proven to be not uncertain. Certainty is the aim of uncertainty so as to be the principle that keeps certainty going.
The aim is to move from disorder to order.
The “now”
The fact that certainty is uncertain, is the reason for infinity is finite determinate. The infinite flickers past through infinity of finites of itself so as to achieve what we know as the moment “now”. (Add above to diversity) The “now” is self identical and fully contained diversity of contradictory determinations. What Buddhism and other traditions speak of that “the only moment is now” means the stable moment we say is “now” is the culmination of continuously going through all possibilities resolves in a point where all this totality is conceivable. This is the idea of the centre of the sphere.
Like space is to time the logical equivalency of nothing to being, thought to object. Time is not merely quantitive pattern of moving from one point to another but is also qualitative behaviour of determination with some definite aim and direction of that end forming shape. the sum total of unique activities concurring at once govern the magnitude of time. In other words simple quality of spacetime, the more events and kinds of activities are happening the faster time. For whitehead the more history progresses the more things happen and the faster the time. Why time goes faster with more happening goes against our intuitive response- the more happening the more time it takes hence slower, yet the more is happening the more time is condensed. (Also add to time as developing the skill to do more efficiently- fitness).
The feature of time condensation as result of simultaneous multiplicity of unique activities is true because of the nature of conception. For example, imagine zooming out of earth to the galaxy it is in and the earth appears as one spec among many. Each in relation to their centre point, the sun, bear a relative time it takes to make full orbit and depending the amount of space covered, distance from the star defines the time it takes to complete orbit. Now imagine conception which conceived simultaneously the orbiting powers of the planets around their respective stars. In knowledge these differences in time are all disclosed within the same conception such that for the conception the many happenings are instantaneous. Unlike this example which takes the expansion of space to condense time, the inverse is occurring as the progression of time, that space is condensed into the concurrence of multiplicity of activities, in other words, an infinite amount of different activities all occurring at the same time are being condensed to the smallest possible space. If we contrast inorganic matter with organic one, we see a vast difference in the relation between organism and environment.
Microscopic testing shows that any piece of organic material contains is a type of environment for certain micro-orbs living within it. Even wood, rock, and dirt are inhabited by microorbs recognizable by empirical testing. Although such microorbs are indivisible from the material they inhabit, a distinction is picked out between environment and organism. Whereas inorganic matter exhibits absolutely no distinction between subatomic activities and environment. The material is identical with the atomic activities that govern it, there has not developed physical distinction between the activities that inhabit the material like in the case of organic matter where the life of the material takes on a distinct body within the environment, in the inorganic sense, the environment and the activity are absolutely identical, the environment body is instantaneously the body of motion.
2000 years of organic year is equivalent 1 million for example of inorganic years.
General consciousness vs special consciousness
As to the question of what consciousness is in and of itself as related to definite conceptions of consciousness, what it observes or conceives at any given moment, is answerable in some length by our limited understanding aided by reason because on the one hand we have no choice but to conceive certain things, yet not limited to that, we can change conception to some other thing, the question is not a matter of whether you conceive or not, because you always do, but what you conceive is the question. Consciousness as pure being is first said to be infinite because we do not have direct knowledge of its cause and philosophically, it is said to be a “cause without itself caused”, which in theology is the definition of god, and second this uncaused manner in the physical sciences begins from what appears to be “arbitrary” point. Arbitrary because consciousness appears probabilistic not localized relative to some other entity from which we can derive measurable sense of place. On the other hand the indeterminate principle of consciousness traces particular paths of the motion which we frame as the conception. When we say that the first principle is indeterminate, that is not the same to say that the movements of it are also undefined. The distinction between the principle as indeterminate and the definite determinations of its possibilities relates to the function of consistency.
(Add to only certainty is uncertainty)
Definite determinations are the attempts to hone the certainty of indeterminate principle. The line, circle etc. are exactly identical expressions of the indeterminate motion, except their principle is unknown as the motive is unclear when they move forward to produce particular relations of which they belong as universal principles. For example, the nature of sound as principle is undifferentiated motion. It becomes particular kind of sound when the hearing organ decides to mute the continuous undifferentiated sound for the sake of discontinuous snippets of differentiated sounds. We can trace the motion of the indeterminate principle to the form of the motion assumed by the content of determinations of its actions like line, circle etc. Yet when it comes to more complex determinations like the state of biological and self-consciousness reality, although possible, very difficult to exactly see how each determination in the environment constitutes elements of life. Self-consciousness like the notion of consciousness is not merely mental capacity but such is also manifest physiological edipus. The operation of human body exhibits consciousness. (Explain how oxygen in blood takes from pancreas the information of digested food making blood and passed to the parts of body like muscles to form the external parts of the body done by such internal relations.
Pure consciousness as indeterminate principle remaining within the contents of its determination is infinite in being capable of probability, which is the enough space for it to make an unpredictable action. Consciousness as first and pure principle involves element of “chaos” by the fact of our inability to predicted which known universal logical relation is manifest as the determinate conception during the immediacy of indeterminacy. This infinity is capability for generation, the power of potentiality. (Add here how the making of potentiality is to keep actuality going below, money potentiality)
Its conception once manifested constitutes for this infinite principle a definite probability field where the potentiality of the indeterminacy is determinate as particular knowable form. The conception is not place where the indeterminacy of the infinite principle operates but is the form of the conception that is identical with the determination of the indeterminate principle. The indeterminate principle is known but its determinations and not what it is as conceiving those.
If we discard the supposition that consciousness is external conception and retain the fact of it that phenomenon is maintained by the conception of consciousness than we are closer to tangible knowledge of the concept because we now view it as an integration of differing parts external from each other sharing the same internal relation, they are forms of the same idea.
Consciousness consists of varying levels of qualitative differences whose contradictions constitute experience generally. To think that there are differing levels of consciousness, like an iceberg of which we are only aware of the tip, is an annoying fact because we intuitively hold consciousness is all encompassing substance conceives anything that falls within its scope. It is very important not to confuse the two sides of the above distinction concerning the nature of consciousness. We understand the substance of consciousness to be impartial capacity so as to conceive things as they are. In this way the conception of consciousness is divorced from the substance of conceiving it leaving unexplained the manner by which consciousness actually conceives the conception. The ontological investigation about the concept cannot afford to merely presuppose that things come into the conception of consciousness just because this is what is presented by experience.
we think that our immediate awareness only retains certain experiences with most of them escaping us. But this is only true at the subjective level of the individual, as totality of species, no level of consciousness escapes experience. All things are happening at once, every word is being spoken. Every action is being done. The happening is the simultaneity of every opposing determination instantaneously being done. theoretically there is only one level of consciousness, that is thought, and we are unsatisfied to say there are different levels of conception because we possess thought and at least potentially nothing escapes our thought. But what kind of solipsism to believe that thought only belongs only to human cogitation. Psychoanalysis for example presupposes that the psyche partakes in a general thought, known as the unconscious, and in that thought is truly objective. However it is obvious that our sensory experience which is branching out of our thought into nature presents limitations such, among many is fatigue, narrow sightedness, etc., whereas non sensory thought, abstract thought, is constantly occurring even during our state of rest, I.e., dreams during sleep. Consciousness taken as a general substratum is a fluctuating Wave of in and out awareness, when one person is asleep someone else is awake, when you look here you do not see over there, when you listen to this thing your not hearing that other thing, but someone else is hearing that other thing your not, smelling these things here means your not smelling those things over there, but they are being smelled by something else. The limit of sensory conception corresponds proportionally to limits of physical dimensions. Whereas the conception of thought is unlimited to physical dimension.
Things are maintained by conception of consciousness because that is the knowledge of the thing as indivisible whole of form and matter. Consciousness is the indivisible relation where matter is the substratum for form and form is the idea of matter. This means that consciousness is not some detached element passively conceiving but is the active motion. The phenomenological experience of the thing. Consciousness is not some detached externality individuating beyond what the object is in form and matter but is the integration of these as the activity of the object. Consciousness is the substance of the mechanism of concentration (find where you talk about concentration). Concentration defines the cognitive capacity of focus as fundamentally a physical law. Concentration concerns the physical nature of “the relative amount of a given substance contained within a solution or in a particular volume of space; the amount of solute per unit volume of solution.” It is what is contained by the “action of gathering together closely.” Focus is concentration where the gathering together is at the center of interest of activity on something.
In geometry “focus” means “one of the fixed points from which the distances to any point of a given curve, such as an ellipse or parabola, are connected by a linear relation.”
For example “the action of strengthening a solution by the removal of water or other diluting agent or by the selective accumulation of atoms or molecules.”
Consciousness is the concentration of form onto matter.
Focal point is “the point at which rays or waves meet after reflection or refraction, or the point from which diverging rays or waves appear to proceed.”
Focal point is the locos of consciousness. Black body radiation
Logic in this sense constitutes the formula of the concentration. Logic so far as bearing the form of thinking, the motion of thinking that way or this way, brings with it the way in which the motion of thought can be clearly and distinctly identified. Clear and distinct perceptions are defined by Descartes as self-evident because they have their foundation in what cannot be logically doubted. Examples of clear and distinct perceptions include the propositions “A = A”.
What is clear and distinct are not perceptions as Descartes shows because perception involves ambiguity like the stick bending by the reflection of the water. Distortions in material compositions received by the sensible organs are only ambiguous because organs are biased in the way they conceive the object and they have to be in order to conceive particular natures of the object. Hearing for example is biased towards the wave frequency exerted from the object. Sensible ambiguities are no logical ambiguities. Distortions in physical composition are perfectly logical depending on the activity endured by the object. That a stick appears bent when placed in water may not tell accurately its physical qualities for perception. But it is logical that the light reflection on the soluble water warps the image of the stick for the eyes.
Perception is the best form of touch providing the highest sensations of rational structure (Aristotle perception is highest of touch) in order for sensation to provide clear and distinct perceptions, it operates on the primary logical rule that is first equal to itself before undergoing any kind of contradiction, in other terms motion must bear some identity before undergoing change, even if that identity is the change itself. Sensation is mode of providing identity to frame the every changing sequence of logical activity. The reason why there are such things as objects relates to the act of abstraction which is responsible for the forms of thought to be maintained as fixities. However since the inheritance of the identity is change, sensation is never exact but only approximate in abstracting activity into object. As to whether objects stand true without sensation is as true as natural objects bear physical structure without developing the mode of sensation. Whether to say that objects exists without consciousness is wholly different claim because consciousness so far as being more fundamental than sensation, is the very substance that maintains intact the logical form of the material substrate.
Sensation is not merely faculty that standing from an external place in the world derives abstraction of it. Sensation comes out naturally from the rational structure of life forms of which we mistakenly say brings out consciousness. At the same time we say that the reason for sensation is to achieve consciousness. Consciousness being the reason of sensation is its cause. Consciousness comes out of the object like light radiates from the sun, or heat from some living organism. But unlike all these properties consciousness is 1) present as the first scope proposing the extent of the aim of the subject matter, 2) during the advances that full-fill the aim by presupposing all contrary determinations possible within the extent of the aim and c) the last instance of the duration where the return to the aim of the beginning with the proof of its reality. These steps happen instantaneously to constitute what we know to be things in the world.
Motion is not the getting from one step towards the other because these are the basis for a thing to be complete particular kind of thing. The nature of motion, change and activity is therefore the generation of potentiality. The production of possibility which presumes something actually. However It is often thought that potentiality comes prior to the existence of anything because it is through potentiality that anything arises. This is certainly true but not in the way assumed by the former proposition because the assumption is that from lack of potentiality there is somehow potentiality, confusing the logical basis of being and the negation non-being, that to be a lack of a thing, no thing, presupposes that from which it is a negation. In fact mathematically, positive numbers are rational numbers meaning that their value is units of measurements. Whereas negative numbers are irrational as their only value is only to be negation in function. -1 is by the unit of 1 but the negation of the unit 1 (check if true)
Potentiality like the negative is only value is to keep actuality. Potentiality is to keep actuality producing reality. This is not a far out idea for our ordinary lives, because in capitalist economy the labourer works for income in the form of money, money is the possibility to keep living. We work for he possibility to keep living, whether the reality of our lives are actual or not, meaning ideal or not is further question to the fact that potentiality sustains it.
Consciousness is the fixation on the logic of the idea from thought as physically exhibited. In this way consciousness is not only faculty but substance, it is the constant attention of form on its substratum, a paraphrasing of Aristotle: the keeping together the imprint on the wax. This means that contained in every physical object is its consciousness. (Add here black body radiation the most fundamental empirical evidence of quantum mechanics. Black body radiation is that from dark matter there radiates ordinary matter.
For example, the way soil, or sand feels, the experience of those materials are integrated in the form of them, and so when you touch them for example, the feelings they illicit such as wetness, softness, hardness etc. Are maintained by the condensation in the object is the experience for, consciousness of the element , in this case ignites in self-consciousness. Every object contains the consciousness of its forms or rather its forms are the consciousness of the object.
The self (9:25:00 Alan watts) every object is like an eye from one same being.
You only know how to act by how other people react to you. However you are an individual because there is differentiation in the determinations of consciousness. Your individuality is only to maintain and insist on a certain kind of conception. Yet you are only sustaining that for the purpose of the maintaining that conception as an experience for the relations of others conception.
Other people tell you who you are (Alan watts 10:53:40)
Continuous wavelength is equal to a localized wave
Certainty as localization- divisibility
Uncertainty is evolutionary force for movement. Unknown is driving force to move. (Alan Watts) The scientist classifies the unknown with known phenomenon.
Here we have to point out the difference between awareness of uncertainty and the adaption to uncertainty
Complex organisms did not adapt to the element of uncertainty from the environment because the environment provided the stability by which the means for certainty is achieved. The notion that the environment exhibits uncertainty is a very complex apperception from self-consciousness recognizing its own rational indeterminacy as part of the substructure of nature. In fact the basic recognition of uncertainty constituted one of the first developments towards self-awareness. It is right to say that the physical structures of animals, their nervous system or immune systems for instance which is found among all Animalia genus, was already developed to manage the uncertainties of the environment prior to the individual animal that encompasses it. Animals for example do not behave as if their environment is uncertain even in the situation when faced with danger their bodies react out of impulse. For example a deer impulsively running away from a lion is the same as a monkey impulsively reacting to sexual urge. instinct is the rational measure of automatically dealing with uncertainties from the environment.
Awareness of uncertainty developed when the species integrated a high level of socialization. When the individuals of species turned their attention away from the certainties of their environment and onto each other, there developed the initial awareness of uncertainty. Basically speaking when an individual life form witness their fellow member of the same species panicking due to a movement indicative of danger, the individual develops prelude sense that the uncertainty is an innate part of the organism not the environment. We see this mostly advanced in the primal homo genus. When a group of cavemen for example go hunting,
When the observer looks at the object, the blind spot is found where the object is not, but where the object is not is not necessarily somewhere else from where the object is. What the object is and what the object is not are found simultaneously in the same conception, an object cannot occupy the same place at the same time is a rule for objects occupying 3-dimensional space. On the one hand the object is certain at least for the faculties of sense perception, but intuitively the object is not because it is accustomed to change.
The observer may question the nature of what he is looking at but cannot question the fact that he is looking at it, and so the question of uncertainty concerns whether the indeterminacy is inherent in the object or in the particular conception of it. When looking at an object the blind spot is the uncertainty, which constitutes the unknown, is per say part of the physiological structure, behind the head, your only ever looking forward, and second, the same blind spot is also part of the environment, the extent of one plain leading into another is related to the same extent of when the observer ends in conceiving a phenomena. When looking at a landscape from far away, the far extent of the environment that cannot be seen anymore has the same unknown uncertainty as the nearest proximity behind the head of the observer that is outside the scope of the perferverial vision.
The unknown factor is imperceptible in the conception of the object as the aspect of what it is not, which obviously is not seen because unknown but is obviously known to be there but not what it is because what the uncertainty of the object is, can be something that is not what is being perceived, so that the second you perceive that something other, the same problem persists in the fact that there is one other thing uncertain.
The difference between certainty and uncertainty is understood in terms of localization. Certainty is localized whereas uncertainty is unlocalized, not restricted to a particular. The explanation of certainty encompassing the form of localization is based on the presupposition that objects are fundamentally conceptions, in the sense they are a point of view, a perspective, or the nebulous concept consciousness, from which certain experiences are conceived through and which at the same time discloses the same experiences as phenomenon. Modern analyzation is accustomed to framing phenomenon as only what happens externally in a natural context measurable by empirical observation. We now often forget that the most principled of phenomenas where historically framed mental, that ideas constitutes the basis of phenomenology, and are the objects of direct experience.
When we point to an object, we are pointing towards a conception disclosing a particular kind of experience. The conception of an object is sublated as a subjective experience, but that is how it is communicable between different objects. Certainty as a physical concept cannot escape its implied psychical presupposition. Certainty is the conception of two forms constituting physical states; first the object is a single thing representing a particular kind of form distinct from other objects within its vicinity which is the conception of the second thing, the sum relations of that objects constituting what it conceives as objects other than itself.
We have an object that is the conception of its relations and the relations that are the conception of the object. In the latter case relations belong as the abstract basis forming the rational potentials of the objects, the thought of the object, in humans the brain, in atoms the nucleus etc, is the point in the object where the infinite set of its relation exists as its potentials. In the former
What the object is and what is conceived through the object are two different realms of certainty. What discloses the potential of relations is itself a real form forming one part in a system of relation. Looking through my head and perceiving the environment is different than my body forming partial conception of the environment.
Uncertainty is the governing factor in this interaction in the following way; objects are ideas taking on individual conceptions of themselves but to maintain their conception they are blind to a different conception taking on the individual form of another idea. The interaction is only in a certain degree of abstraction. What complex biological organisms like mammals view as physical reality is mainly derived from sensations. What it means to be physical for an organism that can feel is quite more particular than what is generally physical in nature, because in the latter case physicality is more abstract, in the sense that it goes beyond the concrete faculties of sensation. Objects in nature do not identify with their interaction but their contact constitutes part of a logical necessity structuring a geometric form. Whereas the complexity of the sensible system enabled the contact between two object to develop an identification with the interaction as something other than the interaction, hence we have feeling.
A multi varied conceptions of different phenomenons take on simultaneously independent localization from each other. one object derives certainty by conceiving itself as a kinda of experience for another object but is blind to what it conceived as itself and conceives its conception through another object conceiving it’s own self for the other.
The development of nature takes the role of certainty which is to make the conception as particular as possible, because the universe is already general. It’s task is to make something so particular, the quality of individuality is already inherent in the generality of the universe, that everything is generally an individual conception.
The uncertainty of an object localized to a certain conception of a form is not nothing because the principle of nothing is something certain to it as a potential, nothing is the certainty of potentially other certainties. The uncertainty of a certain conception is another certainty it is not in direct local relation to. Evolutionary speaking perception solved the problem of uncertainty by maintaining a third perspective over the relation between one single form of an object in relation with its conception disclosing a relation of other objects. Perception is this focus on objects being single things sharing a general relation with other objects maintained as distinctively single things. When an object is out of sight, it exhibits uncertainty into the kinds of relation it might bring or into what kinda thing it is, even though it is certain that it is an object out of sight.
Nothing therefore brings the certainty that there is something, while being brings the uncertainty of what that something is as an infinite potentiality of particular kind of things. The relation becomes a set of distinct conceptions each maintaining their own experiences independently from each other, and their uncertainty is the possibility of an infinity of other certainties. The interaction of certain objects having uncertainty between each other as their relation is what we frame as the laws of nature, or more fundamentally reason itself. There are rules that are always certain and eternal that govern the relation between certain conceptions having an uncertain relation. Laws of nature are certainties derived as having uncertain relations.
Kant definition of time is indeterminacy
Kant says Logic is the science which has for its object nothing but the exposition and proof of all thought whether it be a priori or empirical what ever it be it’s origin or its object and whatever the difficulty natural or accidental it encounters in the human mind. This broad function of logic simply means that every form of action in the universe is logical, but it is the organizing these actions into a system based on a hierarchy of fundmentals, that the quality of experience in time aims to achieve.
(Add to transcendental)
(Add to observer effect preface critique of pure reason 110)
“I should think that the examples of mathematics and natural science, B which have become what they now are through a revolution brought about all at once, were remarkable enough that we might re ect on the essential element in the change in the ways of thinking that has been so advantageous to them, and, at least as an experiment, imitate it insofar as their analo with metaphysics, as rational cognition, might permit.”
“Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but all attempts to find out something about them a priori through concepts that would extend our cognition have, on this pre supposition, come to nothing. Hence let us once whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the ob j ectsa must conform to our cognition, which would agree better with the requested possibili of an a priori cognition of them, which is to estab lish something about objectsb before they are given to us. This would be just like the first thoughts of Copernicus,,6 who, when he did not make good progress in the explanation of the celestial motions if he as sumed that the entire celestial host revolves around the observer, tried to see if he might not have greater success if he made the observer re volve and left the stars at rest. Now in metaphysics we can in a sim- B ii ilar way regarding the intuition of objects. If intuition has to conform to the constitution of the objects, then I do not see how we can know anything of them a priori (known of them when they are not present or know of them at all as we would not know what we are looking at); but if the object (as an objectC of the senses) conforms to the constitution of our facul of intuition, then I can very well represent this possibility to myself. Yet because I cannot stop with these intuitions, if they are to become cognitions, but must refer them as representations to something as their object and determine this object through them, I can assume either that the concepts through which I bring about this determination also conform to the objects, and then I am once again in the same di culty about how I could know anything about them a priori, or else I assume that the objects, or what is the same thing, the experience in which alone they can be cognized (as given ob- jects) conforms to those concepts, in which case I immediately see an easier way out of the di culty, since experience itself is a kind of cog- nition requiring the understanding, whose rule I have to presuppose in myself before any object is given to me, hence a priori, which rule is ex- pressed in concepts a priori, to which all objects of experience must therefore necessarily conform, and wi which they must agree.”
Time (critique of pure reason 2:31:30)
(Add to time as not linear) “Time is the possibility of a conception of change and motion as change of place. No change is discernible without time as intuition of a conjunction of contradictory opposed predicates of one and the same object for example the presence of a thing in a place and the non presence of the same thing in the same place. It is only in time that it is possible to meet with two contradictory opposed determinations in one thing.
No conception of whatever kind can be rendered comprehensible to the possibility of change. Time explains the possibility of synthetical knowledge exhibited in the concept of motion.” (2:32:30)
the error of subreption illegitimate claims to empiricity of representations: I can perceive the formation of my will to lift my arm, and I can perceive the lifting of my arm. To say that I know empirically that my will lifted my arm would be a subreption in Wolff’s sense.
Determination
Another important concept with integrated two fold meaning related to the term conception is determination, which means determinate, purposive and will to do something, action and activity; and also in science means to establish something exactly by ascribing limits.
Indeterminacy
It is important not to confuse the term indeterminate with the meaning of hesitancy or lack of certainty because what we take to be the aspect of uncertainty or being unsure as negative feature in the realm where an immediate action is required, in a non immediate state indeterminacy constitutes the basis for reasonable action because it is the very process of assessment of possibilities and their proper order of execution. Indeterminacy is the feature of reasonableness assumed by abstract thought as the laying forth the set of potential ideas to assess there determination for particular experience. This is done by the encompasses of chaos by order. Disclose order by a form of chaos, which in logic means that chaos is itself a principle of order. In Ancient Greek mythology chaos (“khaos”) is the first state of existences from which came all primeval deities like Gaia, earth. For the Greeks chaos is the dark void of space but it is not obvious whether by chaos the Greeks mean being randomly comes out of nothing because first they say chaos was always there and second it is made from mixture of the four elements like earth, air, water and fire. This ancient notion of chaos is similar to the scientific materialist idea of chaos is the primordial and formless matter which exists before the formation of the universe, but unlike Greek mythology, scientific materialism do claim that being randomly comes out of nothing as per the idiomatic reading of the Big Bang theory, there is an explosion into being from nothing.
The idea that chaos is associated with indeterminacy is derived from the empirical description of chaos which equates the unpredictability of some behaviour with randomness. Whether this unpredictability is derived from limitation of the understanding or the nature of phenomena is inherently unpredictable so as to constitute a limited understanding of it, are both assumed by the physical description.
Uncertainty principle
We do not have a subjective experience of the principle of nothing. Subjective experience through the sensible faculties is limited by an agreement of different modes to some things. There is an uncertain element implied in the conception of phenomena that constitutes a limitation not because some fact about it is not yet known, or cannot be known, but the limiting of the experience is a function of knowing it. The uncertainty principle is first a capacity before it is a limitation in the function of abstract reason because a limit is determined rather than accidentally occurs as a problem to be solved.
Enclypodia of logic Hegel 49
“all determination is for the understanding only a restriction, i.e., a negation as such”
We see this for instance in the fact that even the conception of everything is subject to time, that is, everything is conceived but not all at once. This is not due to the inability to gather the largest amount of quantity into a single reference frame of space but rather the frame of reference involves an aspect it is contained within which is apart from its capacity to conceive. (add here Hegel abrogation) being a part of something apart from you- Belonging to something that does not belong to you- the idea that the conception belongs to a principle not belonging to itself is perplexing notion. It is important to ascertain whether the limitation of experience is due to an incapacity or is itself an aspect of capacity?
Subjectivity involves an objective fact about its nature which informs the misaligned understanding of it reducible to personal idiosyncrasy. The objective nature of subjectivity is explained by how the nature of conception exhibit frame of reference which involves an uncertainty principle as part of its capacity to determine the totality of its potential by limits. The notion of limit devises an object to always be disclosed by conception which granting a certain particularity distinguishes an other as not it. If we adopt the proposition that nothing is subjectively inconceivable because we always have a conception of something, then the objective validity of nothing is in the abstract. In order for Nothing to exist in the abstract means that it’s being is relatedness and is remanent in the very capacity to pick out particular phenomenon. Nothing is principle in the being of the universe that is a wholly abstract object. The proof for its existence is non other than the lack of itself. Its lack of being is the proof for the existence of nothing but this is not without a pragmatic function in nature because to perceive any particular object presupposes the subjection of nothing onto all objects filtered out from the thing being perceived. If its potential is all things, its reality is the limitation of everything to one thing.
One and many as repulsion attraction
97
“The relation of the negative to itself (the self is positive) is negative relation, and therefore distinguishing of the One from itself, the repulsion of the One, i.e., the positing of many Ones”
“When we speak of the One, the manyb usually come to mind at the same time. So the question ·arises here as to where the many come from. Within repre sentational thinking there is no answer to this question, because the many is there regarded as immediately present, and the One counts only as one among the many.c But in accordance with its concept, the One forms the presupposition of the many, and it lies in the thought of the One to posit itself as what is many […] In consequence, the One proves to be what is strictly incompatible with itself, it expels itselfoutofitself,andwhatitpositsitselfasiswhatismany. We can designate this side of the process of being-for-itself by the figurative expression “repulsion” . The term “repulsion” is primarily used with reference to matter; and what is under stood by it is precisely that matter, as a many,e behaves, in each of these many ones, as exclusive of all the others. Besides, we must not interpret this process of repul sion to mean that Onef is what repels while the manyg are what is repelled; instead, as we said earlier, it is the One that is just what excludes itself from itself and posits itself as what is many;” each of the many, however, is itself One, and because it haves as such, this all-round repulsion turns over forthwith into its opposite attraction.”
98
“when the repulsion is considered in itself then, as the negative behaviour of the many ones against each other, it is just as essentially their relation to each other; and since those to which the One relates itself in its repelling are ones, relating to them it relates itself to itself. Thus, repulsion is just as es sentially attraction; and the excluding One or being-for-itself sublates it self. Qualitative determinacy […] has thus passed over into determinacy as sublated, i. e., into being as quantity. “
The experience of things always involves an element of doubt which renders an unknowable aspect, this element of doubt is the other variation potential in the thing. For example 1+1=2 can also be stated as 2=1+1, in the latter we take the result as equal to its explanation, the result when dissected involves the following relations. Whereas in the former case the relations gives rise to the result as if it is something following after it. 2 is equal to the addition of 1+1 , 2=1+1, 2 is known as equal to 1+1 yet it is still stated as a part necessary for the completion of the function. In other words the result is part of the process because it has to be shown as part of the process even if it is what the process arrives at.
Following pierce’s pragmatism a common stipulation purports the need for an explanation, it goes something along the lines of; ‘people do not have ideas, but ideas have people’. Individuals are a complex substrate of ideas. The observer quality of the individual functions like a moderator of abstract thinking. (Add consciousness as concentrate here) Consciousness is difficult concept because it involves a contradictory continuity between a conception that remains pure while identical to a changing form. For example when perceiving a structure like a building, your conception is identical with that building.
The distinction between the object and the conception is not that they are separable from each other but that there is a relative movement between where the conception is derived from as opposed to what it derives the relation of which is disclosed by an over bearing reason of both. There is no quantitive difference between the conception and the object but only a difference between the object being conceived and the object where the conception lies. take for instance distance, whether looking at something up close or very far the object is only distant from where the conception resides but not from the conception of itbecause the conception discloses the object, is never out of view.
There are two ways the conception is limited to the object, the conception is identical with its object in two inverse magnitudes by being identical with the object of its conception, what the conception is concerned with and identical by residing in an object it perceives from the objects of its conception. Distance is an activity in the sense of an experience. In distance there is a movement towards or away. When we perceive the distance between two objects external from each other their distance appears to be fixed space while the objects exert motion away or towards each other, Distance we think is measure of things externally imposed, however this external imposition belongs as an internal movement within a conception. The objects external from each other are disclosed internally within a conception but from the perspective of the conception itself the certain distance away from an object it takes to be external from it, but this conception from which the external relations belongs internally to is a point in them. (Add how external is still internal) When the size of an object within a conception changes that is an experience of distance.
Experience is experiment.
The conception always conforms with the change of the object but the change of the object is conceived, that is, determined into motion. The change occurs because there is an uncertainty element of the conception, we know this as what is “behind your head” wherever you turn there is always something behind you miss to perceive. This uncertainty element is inherent in the form of the conception is actually not a negative feature but it’s positiveavenue of affirmation. The uncertainty aspect of the conception is actually its disclosure.
The self-identity of the conception against the uncertainty is geometrically a self-internal sphere surrounded by circumference of a void. (Find radiation) Radiation in its basic form is emission of energy as electromagnetic waves or as moving subatomic particles, especially high energy particles that cause ionization. Radiation is the effect of the conception consisting an object emitting in the disclosure of void. The conception is a radiation of reality.
(see little conceptions)
The uncertainty is where the conception resides to disclose its aspect of certainty, the avenues of nature formed by the unfolding extrapolation of the ideas against each other. The uncertainty principle of the conception is the potential object of it, which is the flip side to relation of the conception to the object. The object disclosed by the uncertainty of the conception is in an abstract state. This means that there is a multitude of possibilities about what the object for the conception can be. These possibilities are ideas whose force is to form the substrate into their experience. On some level the observer has a choice and a will to partake in the experience of ideas, but only a finite series of ideas are determined due to the necessary uncertainty from which the conception maintains certainty of itself within an identical relation with its object. This is where the ethical principles of reason come into play, as it shows what kind of ideas the conception is attracted to and temperant towards. But we already find ourself within certain determined experiences like the circumference. On the evolutionary level the development of physiology is an attempt to produce the most efficient and stable conception in conceiving itself.